gregory wrote:Actually, JMD suggested that they don't actually HAVE any decks, they just take your money and then abuse your credit card. I have no idea if this is true....I'm a bit lost: who are "they"?

The person behind http://www.solitarysociety.com which showed how to accurately scan tarot cards at print quality 300 dpi using, as an example, the Lebanese Tarot which I published a year or so ago, has happily been far too clever and showed the limited edition card for this item. I can clearly see the number on the card "48" and of course have a record of this persons name and address. He lives in Minnesota.

"Too clever by half" with just a touch of hubris. You cannot always hide on the Internet.

Once he discovers his mistake he will probably edit it out, but I will still know who he is.

Being able to communicate so quickly by e-mail can cause problems, when people act on their first impulse.

I suspect that's what happened with the person who wrote back to Adam, upset, and later seems to have taken his point and revised her thinking--and her website.

eta:
Here is the update on that person's website:
==================PDATE:

Upon further reflection and long discussions with friends, online and off, I've decided to put this website on hold for the time being. I'll continue to expand my tarot collection and will be working on my Tarot Meanings until I'm done, but it will all remain private for now. All I wanted was to share my love of Tarot with everyone, without ever really understanding the copyright implications of displaying full decks. I always assumed that if I bought something it was rightfully mine and I was free to show it to my friends, but the internet has complicated things. I fully understand now that sites like this one are very damaging to the Tarot publishing business. I don't want this business to suffer, because if it goes under who's going to feed my Tarot addiction,eh? The site may be back sometime in the future, but the format will definitely be completely different. The focus will no longer be on displaying images. Peace, everyone.

I am the owner and administrator of the site http://www.SolitarySociety.com. I became aware of this thread by looking through my site's stats and noticed many visits coming from this thread.

I would like a chance to make a couple things clear.

The images of the Lebanese Tarot are from print #48, as shown on the title/edition card. I believe I am within my legal rights of Fair Use, using these images within the tutorial as it is for an educational purpose and does not include the entire work. Which may be why I have not received any communications regarding this tutorial or the material within. A link to contact me is provided at the end of the tutorial, among other places on the site. Nothing clever, nothing hidden, nothing to be edited.

Aside from that use, I belive it is in a person's best interest to have the knowledge and opportunity to make quality scans of their cards and other media if they wish to, to reduce the risk of damage from handling and wear.

The Comparative Tarot Collection, is PRIVATE access only, and is even stated under the link on the 'library' page. There are no means for anyone to access that part of the site, by pay or otherwise. I must manually create all accounts. I have this material available to share with my personal friends, not just anyone with web access. I do not sell access to the collection (as you can see the site does not offer, or have any place to apply or register for membership), nor have I been contacted requesting access or images.

Boundless wrote: I believe I am within my legal rights of Fair Use, using these images within the tutorial as it is for an educational purpose and does not include the entire work.

It never ceases to amaze me how people self-justify themselves.

I belive it is in a person's best interest to have the knowledge and opportunity to make quality scans of their cards and other media if they wish to, to reduce the risk of damage from handling and wear.
Risible ! We are not fools. You are actively encouraging people to scan copyright material at print quality. Why come onto this forum and try and justify this ? It is activities like this that destroy tarot publishing. If you have any care at all for the future of tarot publishing you would stop encouraging others to make copies of material. Otherwise in a few years time small publishers of tarot, like myself, will just give up. There will be no more Lebanese Tarot. You are actively destroying my income, stealing the funds I use to produce more tarots. You encourage people to steal my work.

The Comparative Tarot Collection, is PRIVATE access only, and is even stated under the link on the 'library' page. There are no means for anyone to access that part of the site, by pay or otherwise. I must manually create all accounts. I have this material available to share with my personal friends, not just anyone with web access. I do not sell access to the collection (as you can see the site does not offer, or have any place to apply or register for membership), nor have I been contacted requesting access or images.

Well we only have your word for that. You have no right to pass on my images to other people. I know that people will do this with their friends, but what you are doing is in the public arena. What you put up on the internet is not private - as it reaches over a billion people. If you really were just sharing things with a few friends you would just email them the material (as I am sure many other people do) - not set up a private password protected space on the internet to which only you can give access. I do not know under what terms you provide access to this private library, but it seems to me that in setting up such a private library within a publicly available web page you are not merely sharing a few scans with friends.
We have no idea what you place in this library and what you charge for a password.

I have pondered this matter and come to a conclusion. Sites such as this Solitary Society, encouraging people to copy my decks, who seem to have no remorse and feel they are in the right, are suffiently impacting on my work as to make it impossible for me to continue.

People such as these, are pirates and destroyers of creative individuals like myself. They are closing me down, stopping me publishing artists work. I have been able to publish 23 tarots that would probably not have seen the light of day without my work, but it seems impossible for me to continue.

Publishing tarot is not a financially rewarding activity. One does it for the love of the art. However, publishers have to at least cover their costs, otherwise the inevitable consequences of income and expediture turn against their future work. I find this happening to me, not through anything I have done, but through the activities of people copying, scanning and distributing copies of my tarots, effectively stealing income away from my publishing project. One has to think ahead, and all I can see is my income from my tarot publishing being eroded more and more by copyright theft.

I have published 23 tarots since 2006, and I had hoped to be able to continue this, but recent distribution of my material on the internet on web sites and bundled up in torrent files, is damaging my sales to the point that I can no longer generate sufficient sales to be able to continue without some subsidy. The various people who scan my materials and distribute these illegally on the internet are effectively closing me down. They are responsible for destroying my tarot publishing project and stopping future publications. The only way I can continue would be if someone were willing to subsidise my costs, as I cannot do this myself any more. The future looks bleak for small independent tarot publishers. I am now working on the 23rd tarot in my series. It seems it will have to be the last. My project has been killed off by people using the internet to distribute my material. This last year or so there has been a massive uptick in piracy. People are making money at the expense of small publishers such as myself, though file-sharing payments, and password protected sites one has to pay to gain access. The failure of the internet community to deal with these culprits will have a powerful destructive effect on small creative individuals like myself. I cannot afford to lose my future income.

The only way I can see for me to be able to contuinue publishing tarot would be if some white knight were to offer an ongoing subsidy. I cannot bear the financial burden any more.

I find my publishing activities are being closed down by pirates - people who think they have some right to steal other people's material and income.

Boundless wrote: The images of the Lebanese Tarot are from print #48, as shown on the title/edition card. I believe I am within my legal rights of Fair Use, using these images within the tutorial as it is for an educational purpose and does not include the entire work. Which may be why I have not received any communications regarding this tutorial or the material within. A link to contact me is provided at the end of the tutorial, among other places on the site. Nothing clever, nothing hidden, nothing to be edited.

That's not actually correct. the law is up to 10% for educational purposes.

I had actually considered emailing you about the tutorial (which, by the way, is so elementary that I don't see the need for it anyhow) but I couldn't be bothered; I figured you would not change your position. I'm glad to see you at least identify yourself here.

But if teaching is indeed your main aim - why not use an open source deck for the tutorial ? For us all to see the end of Adam's publishing career would be a tragedy - and it would be partly down to your website.

Aside from that use, I belive it is in a person's best interest to have the knowledge and opportunity to make quality scans of their cards and other media if they wish to, to reduce the risk of damage from handling and wear.Perhaps it is. But teaching them to do so using COPYRIGHT images that damage the sales of a small publisher is not the way to go about it. You KNOW people will pass them on. It's not morally OK to say "well that wasn't my idea and I do tell them not to."

The Comparative Tarot Collection, is PRIVATE access only, and is even stated under the link on the 'library' page. There are no means for anyone to access that part of the site, by pay or otherwise. I must manually create all accounts. I have this material available to share with my personal friends, not just anyone with web access. I do not sell access to the collection (as you can see the site does not offer, or have any place to apply or register for membership), nor have I been contacted requesting access or images.
And that makes it OK to breach copyright ? I don't think so.

The National Portrait Gallery is currently suing wikipedia, I believe, over reproductions of actual paintings in their collection. (Karen knows more about this than I do.) Are you suggesting they are not within their rights ?

One might ask - why did he not use a Lo Scarabeo, US Games, Llewellyn, or Schiffer Books deck ? Obviously because he feared they might take legal action against him.

I, as a small scale publisher, am fair game for these pirates. I have been told that he has many more of my decks in his special Comparative Tarot Library, only available to his "friends", who would appear to be anyone on the internet willing to trade scans or pay him for access.

Anyway, he was the last straw for me. Publishing cannot survive when people like this, abuse and steal our work.

gregory wrote:
The National Portrait Gallery is currently suing wikipedia, I believe, over reproductions of actual paintings in their collection. (Karen knows more about this than I do.) Are you suggesting they are not within their rights ?

Actually Gregory, that's not a good example because Wiki initiated this action (provoked it if you will) because they want to establish in law that older works are in public domain. The only proof now cited of that is Bridgeman v Corel and it's rather specific so Wiki wanted to test the law. Wiki will probably win and in many ways I hope they do.

But that's an entirely different matter than works currently in copyright - which everything that Adam publishes certainly is.

I agree with Adam that there is more and more of this sort of thing going on. There is, for example, a charming woman in Russia who is offering to make copies of any of our decks and is selling them for a high price. We are dealing with her as we now have a licensing arrangement with a publisher in Russia who is taking action against such people. However, you deal with one and another pops up - it's endlessly time-consuming.

What you can do to help is to NOT buy decks that you think are pirated. Each and every stolen deck you buy ( or download illegally and make) brings small publishers nearer to shut-down. I really don't care if you want them to "complete your collection" - there won't be anything decent left to collect if this rampant pirating carries on.

It is sad, really sad, that small publishers like Adam have to give up their work because of the pirating. Of course I also love to see images online, so I can decide if I want the deck. But well, usually a few images will do. I have heared from the webmistress of Tarot Passages that you are allowed to show up to 6 images from a tarot, which is what both that site and Tarotgarden show. It gives a good idea of what a deck is about.

Anyway, I am sad to read that number 23 will be your last published tarot, Adam and I hope you will reconsider.

I am perfectly devastated to hear this. I only have two of Adam's decks but hope someday to be able to acquire more. I was still hoping for a copy of the Tarot Obscura, as the Web site says another batch was coming but now that seems unlikely.

I fear what is happening here will be the eventual fate of the publishing industry in general now that books are going more and more into the electronic format. The pirating of books is well underway. It seems anything on the internet is fair game for these poachers.

Risible ! We are not fools. You are actively encouraging people to scan copyright material at print quality. Why come onto this forum and try and justify this ? It is activities like this that destroy tarot publishing. If you have any care at all for the future of tarot publishing you would stop encouraging others to make copies of material. Otherwise in a few years time small publishers of tarot, like myself, will just give up. There will be no more Lebanese Tarot. You are actively destroying my income, stealing the funds I use to produce more tarots. You encourage people to steal my work.

Well, you are behaving like a fool. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical to show others how to use their scanner and make backup copies of their possessions. Regardless of what publishers would like. I do not need to justify anything, but I will not ignore lies and slander about me and my site.

As I have said, I have not sold any of my scans, or access to the collection.

"You encourage people to steal my work." Bullshit.

Well we only have your word for that. You have no right to pass on my images to other people. I know that people will do this with their friends, but what you are doing is in the public arena. What you put up on the internet is not private - as it reaches over a billion people.

My site may be public, but as the link states within the Library, the CTC is PRIVATE. Do you not understand what that means? No, billions of people do not have access to that material, it is password protected, which means to gain access you must have a password. This idea is very simple. However, I would love for my site to have Billions in traffic, that would be great.

If you really were just sharing things with a few friends you would just email them the material (as I am sure many other people do) - not set up a private password protected space on the internet to which only you can give access.

Ok, I see you do understand the idea, but you choose to employ ignorance when it suits your agenda.

I do not know under what terms you provide access to this private library, but it seems to me that in setting up such a private library within a publicly available web page you are not merely sharing a few scans with friends.

The terms are very simple. The person must be a personal friend of mine with an interest in the Tarot, in which case I may create an account for them to access the CTC.

We have no idea what you place in this library

That is the point of a password protected area, to keep people who do not have permissions out.

and what you charge for a password.

As previously stated in my first post, you cannot buy access or apply for access to the CTC.

One might ask - why did he not use a Lo Scarabeo, US Games, Llewellyn, or Schiffer Books deck ? Obviously because he feared they might take legal action against him.

Obviously *rolls eyes*. I had chosen to use the deck because it was a lesser known deck than a Lo Scarabeo or US Games deck. A look at the index page will show a card image from The Russian Tarot of St. Petersburg, published by US Games. Your ignorance is impressive.

I, as a small scale publisher, am fair game for these pirates. I have been told that he has many more of my decks in his special Comparative Tarot Library, only available to his "friends", who would appear to be anyone on the internet willing to trade scans or pay him for access.

Wow! this is news to me and I am the only one with access to the back end of the site. Your source of information, if there is one, is full of it. Here is a screenshot of the Comparative Tarot Collection, which was last updated Feb 22, 2010. The only deck which was published by Alchemy Web Bookshop, is the Lebanese Tarot.

[Image deleted]

Anyway, he was the last straw for me. Publishing cannot survive when people like this, abuse and steal our work.

You can try to blame me, but your lies and slander speaks for itself. After seeing the display of your behavior, I would not purchase another product from your site. Its too bad, I enjoy the one deck I have which you published.

I have been completely honest with you, yet you call me a liar and a theif. You will believe what you want to believe, so I will not try to convince you. But I will not stand by while you lie and slander about me and my efforts.

Well, you are behaving like a fool. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical to show others how to use their scanner and make backup copies of their possessions. Regardless of what publishers would like. I do not need to justify anything, but I will not ignore lies and slander about me and my site.
Well, you can see me as a fool. I have however, published twenty three tarot decks. I have enabled the work of these tarot artists to come into a printed form. A foolish activity. You, and people like you, are completely uncreative.You create nothing. Instead your selfishness destroys the work of artists and publishers. You even come on here to try to justify yourself.

If you cared anything about tarot you would close your site immediately. You should be ashamed of yourself. You were the final straw for me. You have closed my business. I will not be able to continue producing tarot decks. I am a fool to have believed that people who care about tarot art would want to support and nourish the work of tarot artists.

Sadly, a number of artists will now not see printed editions of their work.

The foolishness will rebound on you one day when you realise just how destructive you are being. You are responsible for these artists not seeing their work published. Try and justify yourself to them. Are they fools for having wasted many hundreds of hours of their time producing a set of tarot designs never to see them published? You and your kind are killing tarot. You seem to be without conscience, a selfishly self-justifying individual. You obviously care nothing for the impact of your activities on the creative work of others.

We are indeed fools, for believing the world did not contain people like yourself . You will no doubt go and continue your selfish uncreative work, copying and stealing other peoples' creative energies. One day, you may develop a conscience and realise what you have done.

Sadly, you just exhibit arrogant self-justification. It shows what sort of person you are.

I leave a legacy of tarot publication, brought prematurely to an end by you and your kind.
It could have been so much better. I could have continued for another five years except for uncreative, parasitic people like you.

There are two completely separate things going on here and it is a shame for us all. Had I been in Boundless' position and seen this thread, I think I would have said OK - if it bothers you, I will use a copyright free deck for the tutorial. That would have been polite and thoughtful.

Like the AT member who posted a load of full decks and has now taken them down, and like Solandia, who has decided not to allow links to sites which post full decks, there is a copyright issue here, and multiply, for one, certainly does foster sales of appallingly poor reproductions which damage the reputations of the genuine publishers; Karen has said that the sold images had put people off buying MRP decks. You do also get unscrupulous publishers whop turn out poor quality pirate decks.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone wanting a real art deck - Adam's or anyone else's - would be satisfied with printing off their own copy. I have an art deck created by a member here and with her permission (I am obsessive about doing it right !) I scanned a copy to print, as it was fragile and I wanted to be able to use it. It isn't in the same class - not even as the fragile original. No collector would be satisfied with it.

I don't, therefore, think that Boundless' site will in fact really affect sales of genuine decks from Adam's stable. But I do think the sites of some others do affect tarot sales in general - though perhaps not Adam's decks in particular; more from large presses. Serious collectors are not going to download dodgy images and self-print - that's not what collecting is about !

And I don't see that you can have one rule for one site and another for another. Adam's courses have been extensively pirated and sold on with no benefit to him - and his sensitivity on this issue is therefore understandable. Copyright on the web is a nightmare, and needs sorting out. I don't see that there will ever be a way to regulate it properly but I wish there were.

There is one site where the owner has secured permission from publishers for every card he shows. That is the polite way to do things - whether or not one owns the deck. I wish Boundless had asked first.

And I wish Adam would reconsider and carry on publishing. Can we all try and persuade him ?

I don't, therefore, think that Boundless' site will in fact really affect sales of genuine decks from Adam's stable.
I am sorry, but it is for me to make that judgement. It is easy for someone to say this who is not directly affected. It is my income that is being stolen. The reality is that once something gets onto the internet it becomes compiled into the torrents and it is there for ever. The complete set of Orphalese scans of copyright material, supposedly removed some years ago, is still easily available on the torrents.

And I wish Adam would reconsider and carry on publishing.
I just cannot see how to continue publishing tarots when these are being copied and distributed. It makes no economic sense.

Why should I pay all the costs of producing a tarot, paying the artist a reasonable sum for the rights to publish an edition, when other feel they can just have this for nothing? I end up merely subsiding pirates.

I think people have to wake up! There will be no small niche publishers in a few years time. They will have been destroyed by people encourging copying. This has already stopped my tarot publishing project dead.

AdamMcLean wrote: I don't, therefore, think that Boundless' site will in fact really affect sales of genuine decks from Adam's stable.
I am sorry, but it is for me to make that judgement. It is easy for someone to say this who is not directly affected. It is my income that is being stolen. The reality is that once something gets onto the internet it becomes compiled into the torrents and it is there for ever. The complete set of Orphalese scans of copyright material, supposedly removed some years ago, is still easily available on the torrents.

But do you know ANYONE who has ever bought any of your decks who has since gone for a downloaded one instead ? Your decks are works of art. No-one who wants a work of art would settle for less. They aren't cheap - and justifiably not - but many sellers - including that nice one we both know - are finding that nothing much is selling, because people are actually short of cash.

There are people out there looking for your decks - there are people still begging for the oop ones on AT.

gregory wrote: But do you know ANYONE who has ever bought any of your decks who has since gone for a downloaded one instead ?

Well, I don't know about Adam, but I certainly have that proof. There is a Russian forum where a woman openly offers to print off any of our decks from her digital files of them. And yes, people do buy. Halina, the colleague with whom we work in Russia, bought one with our agreement (we wanted to try to work out where the source files are coming from) and says that it's appalling - obviously printed from low res digital files and on card that's like paper. BUT - people are buying these. That not only steals sales from us, it also damages our reputation. The buyers will show those decks to other people and say, "Here is the Bohemian Gothic Tarot" (or whatever other of our decks they have obtained this way). And people will see this ghastly, mashed up rip-off and think it's how our decks look.

As I keep saying - and I notice that I get silence and no responses when I do, which is disappointing - please do not buy decks that you think are pirated, it's killing small publishers.

I'll just add - for anyone thinking that a few sales in Russia don't matter. In fact, Russia is one of the biggest tarot markets in the world now and a place where we could sell a great deal. The pirated decks there are hurting us.

There are two completely separate things going on here and it is a shame for us all. Had I been in Boundless' position and seen this thread, I think I would have said OK - if it bothers you, I will use a copyright free deck for the tutorial. That would have been polite and thoughtful.

Had Adam contacted me, he may have had a chance that I would have changed the few images displayed, however as he has chosen to bring this to a public forum and spread lies, use vulgar insults, and throw a temper tantrum like a child, I will not budge on my rights of Fair Use.

It has been mentioned on this thread that up to six card images may be displayed. I have displayed less than that (four). I believe Gregory, had mentioned previously 10%. I'm not about to count pixels, but if I am over, I do not believe it to be by much, certainly not to warrant the lies and slander Adam is trying to spread.

BTW, why was the graphic showing the list of decks within the collection removed? Adam was sure enough of his information to make a public accusation but the graphic shows his accusation is baseless.

My account may be deleted now, again. I will recreate it when I need to defend myself, again.

Yes - as I say - I think it hurts mass market publishers - and MRP is a LOT larger than Adam ! - What I meant, though, is that given the nature of Adam's decks, I cannot believe that anyone who might have bought one would in any way be satisfied with a knock off. (Not that they would with yours, OF COURSE, if they were aware - the thing with Adam's is that the market for his numbered and signed decks is essentially limited and rather specialised, and I would bet that anyone wanting one would know exactly what they had got if a fake showed up.)

That's why I asked if there was any evidence someone who had bought one in the past had taken that option since.

Now if - as has happened with MRP - there were actually a rogue publisher churning out bootlegs of Adam's decks, I would be right up there shrieking. As I did about yours, Karen ! I don't think anyone is putting out fake actual printed copies of Adam's. They are with his courses, I know that.

gregory wrote: Yes - as I say - I think it hurts mass market publishers - and MRP is a LOT larger than Adam !

We are hardly mass market Gregory.

gregory wrote: What I meant, though, is that given the nature of Adam's decks, I cannot believe that anyone who might have bought one would in any way be satisfied with a knock off. (Not that they would with yours, OF COURSE, if they were aware - the thing with Adam's is that the market for his numbered and signed decks is essentially limited and rather specialised, and I would bet that anyone wanting one would know exactly what they had got if a fake showed up.)

Well, unfortunately not everyone knows what they are buying - or cares. They often just think they are getting a rare deck cheap. Or they are foolish enough to want to "complete their collection" by buying all versions of a deck - including the pirated ones. I've seen people openly talking about that on many forums - I'm quite sure you have too.

By what I've seen on that Russian forum (and actually on others too - I've just remembered that there was a teen US forum a couple of years back where someone was offering to print off Bohemian Cats for other forum members) people DO make and sell pirated copies of anything where they think there is a market. You actually can't tell if someone is already doing this with Adam's decks.

No - but you are very much larger than Adam - in that - for instance - you sell on amazon and other such sites; Adam with only 100 copies to each print run, cannot and does not.

BabaStudio wrote: Well, unfortunately not everyone knows what they are buying - or cares. They often just think they are getting a rare deck cheap. Or they are foolish enough to want to "complete their collection" by buying all versions of a deck - including the pirated ones. I've seen people openly talking about that on many forums - I'm quite sure you have too.

By what I've seen on that Russian forum (and actually on others too - I've just remembered that there was a teen US forum a couple of years back where someone was offering to print off Bohemian Cats for other forum members) people DO make and sell pirated copies of anything where they think there is a market. You actually can't tell if someone is already doing this with Adam's decks.

I know people do knock offs of yours. It's disgusting. I was one of many to join in the huge fuss, as you may recall - emails all over the world. As a matter of interest, though - has anyone ever seen or heard of a knock off of one of Adam's ? Yes you can't tell, I agree - but I still wonder how much it is affecting sales of the real McCoy, that's all.

We can't tell. But for Adam to give up because of this is very sad indeed. You haven't - and we all KNOW you have been directly affected.

Boundless wrote: Well, you are behaving like a fool. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical to show others how to use their scanner and make backup copies of their possessions. Regardless of what publishers would like. I do not need to justify anything, but I will not ignore lies and slander about me and my site.

Actually, it would be libel because it is written down. But this is a moot point.

I know people do knock offs of yours. It's disgusting. I was one of many to join in the huge fuss, as you may recall - emails all over the world. As a matter of interest, though - has anyone ever seen or heard of a knock off of one of Adam's ? Yes you can't tell, I agree - but I still wonder how much it is affecting sales of the real McCoy, that's all.

We can't tell. But for Adam to give up because of this is very sad indeed. You haven't - and we all KNOW you have been directly affected.

Well, we might well be next. We are certainly not planning to publish much more after Alice. One or two more decks at the most.

One thing I found depressing - and enlightening - was that when we said we'd been pirated (larger quantities in that case) in Russia, one of the first responses I had was people emailing me to ask for the source - because, I deduce, they wanted to try to buy one of the pirates before we had them stopped. My feelings about that are exactly the same as if my house was burgled and I said I knew who the fence was, and someone tried to get me to give them his address so they could go and buy the stolen goods. Not nice. Not nice at all.

BabaStudio wrote: gregory wrote: I was one who asked you for the source, as I recall. I wanted to blitz them with rude emails from all but my most PERSONAL email address ! Maybe others did too...

And I know at least one person was trying to see if they were doing the same to others.

So it's a firm policy with you that you don't buy any decks that you think are pirated?

Yes.

I do own two that I think MIGHT have been - but I didn't know when I bought them - and they were already LONG out of print. And I did buy a Thoth that was probably sort of pirated; provenance very unclear.

I did hanker a bit over that Buckland Romani mini from Russia, as it interested me - but I didn't do it. I so wanted to.

You know, I am not trying to be confrontational here but I just think it's important to point out, on what is a tarot collectors forum, that you (the generic "you" not aimed at anyone in particular) can't say on the one hand that you are appalled by piracy and opposed to it, and on the other hand, buy decks that you know (or strongly suspect) are pirated.

But this is what I see happen all the time. I find it sad and it really undermines the makers of the ripped off decks.

My conclusion is that in reality no one much cares as long as they get the decks they want - from pirates, knock-off merchants or whoever.

I do own two that I think MIGHT have been - but I didn't know when I bought them - and they were already LONG out of print. And I did buy a Thoth that was probably sort of pirated; provenance very unclear.

I did hanker a bit over that Buckland Romani mini from Russia, as it interested me - but I didn't do it. I so wanted to.

And that pirated Sheridan Douglas - I remember you bought that after Alfred started the thread about it.

But, on the bright side, I'm very pleased to know that you don't now buy any pirated decks. Your stance is appreciated. I would appreciate it also if you would urge others, including posters here and on AT NOT to buy them.

gregory wrote: But you will recall (maybe) that I was very active in the campaign against VirtualTarot. Fat lot of good it did, but I did try !

Yes, and that was much appreciated. But please also be active in urging people not to buy pirated printed decks.

I have mentioned this four times here now and on each occasion I've had no support whatsoever for a boycott of pirated decks. Why is that?

There is a certain school of thought (again, I am saying this generically, not aimed at any individual/s) that goes "Yes, pirating is bad, but I will buy the goods anyway because I need to complete my collection." You can see why I (and actually many others, you'd be surprised how much deck makers chat in private) find that unsupportive and offputting.

OK - whenever you SEE one advertised, TELL me and I certainly will. I don't watch the trading threads a whole lot; I am in enough trouble with people making me offers I can't refuse .

But saying "boycott pirated decks" as a general thing is a tough one - so many people don't REALISE until it's too late. I had PM not long ago from someone who had bought one of the Buckland ones asking me if I thought it was pirated; when I said yes, almost certainly, he was gutted; he would never have bought it if he'd known. Adn I believe him - and he is a completionist, like me ! It works better if one can post where they are being offered "Hey,this is a bootleg, don't do it."

gregory wrote: OK - whenever you SEE one advertised, TELL me and I certainly will. I don't watch the trading threads a whole lot; I am in enough trouble with people making me offers I can't refuse .

But saying "boycott pirated decks" as a general thing is a tough one - so many people don't REALISE until it's too late. I had PM not long ago from someone who had bought one of the Buckland ones asking me if I thought it was pirated; when I said yes, almost certainly, he was gutted; he would never have bought it if he'd known. Adn I believe him - and he is a completionist, like me ! It works better if one can post where they are being offered "Hey,this is a bootleg, don't do it."

Appreciated Gregory. You get ten gold stars for being the first person to offer to do this.

I know not everyone knows what they are buying. But some do. Serious tarot lovers should take a stance, it would go a long way.

BabaStudio wrote:
No Debra. Over several weeks actually. Not once was there any response.Ok Karen. I understand.

You have a good point. I am no fan of copyright violations for a number of excellent reasons, none of them brilliant or original.

It is also true, those with collection inclinations sometimes want the interesting and unusual. Thus knock-offs may have an appeal--especially if they are of historical interest. And for people who really want a deck, if it is not available (out of print, a limited edition, very hard to find), well, what are they to do. Some of them buy what they can find. It seems to me often a problem related to distribution, actually.

That said, I have bought, to my knowledge, about eight t-shirts with unauthorized logos, back in the day when the business of name brand knock-offs was just getting started, before the world's big producers started screaming about it and mechanisms were developed to discourage and punish it. And I have two pirate decks, a deLaurence and the same Hexerey Thoth that many people bought at AT and on e-bay. I like them both very much.

debra wrote: And for people who really want a deck, if it is not available (out of print, a limited edition, very hard to find), well, what are they to do. Some of them buy what they can find. It seems to me often a problem related to distribution, actually.

Well, with a limited edition, it isn't anything to do with distribution, a limited edition is well, limited. A lot of people who want it probably won't get it - that's in the nature of what it is, and no excuse to rip it off or to buy the rip offs. It puts the publisher in a dreadful position because if someone is bootlegging the deck on the grounds of, "but these poor people want it and can't get it, aaaaawwww." then what is the publisher to do? Reissue and break trust with the purchasers of the original? I think not.

I'm not sure it's distribution in any case Debra. Great distribution of films on DVD doesn't seem to prevent piracy of those same films.

I think it's a mix of people wanting something for cheaper (many of the decks that are pirated can be bought, but at higher OOP prices) and also wanting, as you say, to complete a collection with everything that moves - including the pirated bootlegs. The problem with that justification (I'm not saying that you are justifying it, but some people do) is that in the longer term, supporting pirates with purchases will make less not more, new tarots available. As this thread makes clear.

BabaStudio wrote: I have mentioned this four times here now and on each occasion I've had no support whatsoever for a boycott of pirated decks. Why is that?

Well, I definitely support a boycott of pirated decks. If I haven't replied to a thread it could be for any number of reasons - I might not have seen it or seen it and meant to reply later - goodness knows. Sorry, Karen. I guess the same applies to other people too.

I spend very little time at AT, and not much time here except between projects, so am not really up to speed with what's going on. Also I only buy the decks I like or think I'll like (and never buy to resell and make a profit), so perhaps I'm not a true tarot 'collector'.

I did see the Sheridan Douglas fairly recently on ebay - it was so cheap that it just had to be either pirated or a faulty printing that had been intended for the waste bin. I didn't buy one for that reason, although I'd have quite liked a Sheridan Douglas.

Re. the Russian lady, I'm wondering if she's the same one who emailed me a few weeks ago wanting a trade price on one each of the decks I've published. Coincidentally, this was almost immediately after someone had posted here that they were looking for a Pen Tarot, using the heading 'Name Your Price!'.

I replied that as these are in limited editions of 100, and once sold no more will be printed, that there is no trade price. I didn't hear from her again.

I hope Adam reconsiders his decision to stop producing art tarots. It would be a sad loss if he doesn't.

BabaStudio wrote:
Well, with a limited edition, it isn't anything to do with distribution, a limited edition is well, limited. A lot of people who want it probably won't get it - that's in the nature of what it is, and no excuse to rip it off or to buy the rip offs. It puts the publisher in a dreadful position because if someone is bootlegging the deck on the grounds of, "but these poor people want it and can't get it, aaaaawwww." then what is the publisher to do? Reissue and break trust with the purchasers of the original? I think not.

I'm not sure it's distribution in any case Debra. Great distribution of films on DVD doesn't seem to prevent piracy of those same films.

I think it's a mix of people wanting something for cheaper (many of the decks that are pirated can be bought, but at higher OOP prices) and also wanting, as you say, to complete a collection with everything that moves - including the pirated bootlegs. The problem with that justification (I'm not saying that you are justifying it, but some people do) is that in the longer term, supporting pirates with purchases will make less not more, new tarots available. As this thread makes clear.

You may be right.

And our friend the internet allows tarot artists and publishers to publicize their art and facilitates a more extensive market than might otherwise exist, while also facilitating the kind of file-sharing and image downloading that concerns Adam.

I suspect that as publishers work out the optimal number of decks for a limited edition, some of these problems will evaporate. For example, has anyone ever heard of knock-offs of Il Meneghello decks? I haven't. They are, I think almost all, very large "limited" editions, of what? 2000? 3000?

The limits on almost all tarot limited editions, as far as I can see, are not at all related to the limits of production techniques (not like etchings, for example) but rather to calculations by the producer/artist involving a variety of factors which I am sure you and other tarot publishers here can discuss much more thoroughly than I.